I love how the very people who think borders are artificial and contrived also believe that crossing one fundamentally changes a person's outlook on life. Millions of people who believe and live by philosophy A on side X of the line will suddenly believe and live by philosophy B on side Y of the line.

Yeah, and you still haven't managed to offer any evidence that population density and culture are inconsequential. You keep appealing to freedom without realizing that freedom doesn't just happen. It's the consequence of very specific cultural factors, including population density. It may be inherent to the species that overpopulation brings tyranny, in much the same way that overpopulation in rats leads to cannibalism.

If you really like freedom, you need to preserve the conditions that make it possible. Since you're intent on destroying those conditions, I suspect your use of the word is merely cynical.

What possible evidence would change your mind? My experience is that even if I can get you to grudgingly admit that opening the border somewhat is a pareto improvements, you would still oppose it because you think I'm "weasely".

When you have a habit of making dishonest arguments don't be surprised if people don't trust you. But if you wanted to rebuild your reputation, you could start by clearly and openly admitting your goals, and addressing the practical objections to your ideologically based assertions.

My goal has always been the same: the free movement all peoples across national borders, just as we have free movement across state borders now.

Exactly. But that's an ideological goal, not a pragmatic goal. And you refuse to make a pragmatic argument or address pragmatic considerations because you are an ideologue. The practical consequences are less important than whether or not the ideology is upheld. If you have to destroy the U.S. to enact your highest ideal of "freedom of movement", so be it. But that's not convincing to anyone who isn't an ideologue, anyone who enjoys other things in life besides single-minded pursuit of an ideal in isolation.

I don't think any arguments I could make will persuade you, pragmatic or otherwise. And I don't think we could agree on the terms of any bets. So I don't see much point in arguing with you on this issue.

Well, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? If you don't try, you can't succeed. Even if you don't convince me, you could conceivably use me to hone the arguments you'd need to convince thousands of other pragmatists. But you won't even try. Of course, if you don't try can't fail, either. Except that by refusing to even attempt to make a case, you are failing. You will never appeal to anyone outside of those who already accept your ideological premise that freedom of movement across international borders is the one freedom that matters, the only aspect of quality of life worth mentioning.

And they already agree with you. So what have you gained?

And do you think I'm happy or sad that my political opponents like to waste their time preaching to the choir?

There is some merit to argument that I will hone my arguments by arguing with you.

But assuming my goal is to repeal immigration laws, what is the best way to spend my time? Is the best way to spend time arguing with you on LJ? Who is going to read or care about it, other than a few of our friends?

I'd rather spend the time earning more money to finance iniatives that will reach a wider population. Not to mention spending time with my girlfriend, reading, etc.